Indeed. Perhaps Nazi rhetoric regarding Ukrainians changes so to portray the Ukrainians as Varangians...
Last edited:
The Soviet Invasion of Nazi Germany May 1942
- Thread starter Darkest
- Start date
Indeed. Perhaps Nazi rhetoric regarding Ukrainians changes so to portray the Ukrainians as Varangians...
I am sure that in this instance,a Soviet invasion of Europe,you say?The Soviets would not do well,not at all.Stalin knew that as of May 1942 his army was terribly incompetent compared to Nazi Germany.Absolutely useless.The Winter War against Finland made this abundantly clear.During the initial invasion of Russia,the Germans slaughtered the Red Army,they only stayed in the fight due to the immense amount of territory the Germans had to cross,and the sheer number of troops that Stalin was willing to sacrifice.If Stalin did do this,and mounted an invasion of Poland and I guess Romania to push out the Germans(which seems to be the obvious starting point for a Soviet war against Germany)then the Germans would destroy them,then advance through Russian-held Poland and the rest of Europe that was ceded to the Soviets under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.This would also neccesitate a Soviet war with Finland and Bulgaria as well.The Soviets would have to defeat these as well.If the Winter War is any guide,they will crush the Red Army,especially with German help.I think one of the results of the Soviets being the aggressor will be a neutral position by the western Allies on the battle between the Soviets and Nazis.They will not support them and will probably declare war on the Soviets after the Germans have surrendered if they dont pull out Soviet forces.Teh Nazis would get control of all of Eastern Europe,and Finland would get land from the Russians.Bulgaria would be sitting pretty to I guess.There would be a short armistice between the Russians and Germans after about 1 year of fighting in which Lithuania gets independence and becomes noncommunist.Eventually after a while(1-2 years) the Axis invades Ukraine and Estonia and keeps going from there.I think,this might end with a Axis victory on the Eastern Front.
If Hitler was rational then it is possible (although I think far from certain and probably fairly unlikely) such an invasion could be a disaster for the Russians. I tend to think the poor show in the Winter War is often overstated. The fact is that the war was fought in the depths of winter, a time when even the brilliant Wehrmacht called off offensive operations.
I am not saying there are not alot of problems with the Soviet armed forces, but a suprise attack across Poland at a sensible time of year is a very different prospect than one launched into Finland facing some of the most extreme weather conditions in the world.
More likely the attack falters on poor logistics, perhaps at the gates of Konigsberg or for ironies sake Berlin and the fighting proceeds to become a meatgrinder with little progress on either side (well for that year anyway). German forces are getting torn up preventing a major coup on the scale of the encirclements made during Barbarossa.
The thing is I can easilly see Hitler demanding his generals stand their ground and fight to the last man and them trying to do so with disasterous results for the Germans.
As for the Suez Canal.. I was under the impression (although not sure where from) that a significant amount British traffic to India was going via South Africa during the war during this period. Admittedly the loss of Suez would be a major blow to British prestige but I doubt its going to see India and Churchill collapse overnight.
I am not saying there are not alot of problems with the Soviet armed forces, but a suprise attack across Poland at a sensible time of year is a very different prospect than one launched into Finland facing some of the most extreme weather conditions in the world.
More likely the attack falters on poor logistics, perhaps at the gates of Konigsberg or for ironies sake Berlin and the fighting proceeds to become a meatgrinder with little progress on either side (well for that year anyway). German forces are getting torn up preventing a major coup on the scale of the encirclements made during Barbarossa.
The thing is I can easilly see Hitler demanding his generals stand their ground and fight to the last man and them trying to do so with disasterous results for the Germans.
As for the Suez Canal.. I was under the impression (although not sure where from) that a significant amount British traffic to India was going via South Africa during the war during this period. Admittedly the loss of Suez would be a major blow to British prestige but I doubt its going to see India and Churchill collapse overnight.
Valamyr
Banned
Churchill bid everything on Suez. When Singapore fell, he said he'd chose to defend Suez over Singapore and he'd do it again because it was vital to the Empire. When there was a motion of non-confidence over the fall of Tobruk, his speech to the chamber emphasized that there was no immediate threat to Suez and that he would defend it successfully.
If it had fallen, he might even have resigned. But perhaps not, given the war and the character. Anyhow, the Cape route accounted for less than 10% of the traffic to Asia and was VASTLY longer than the Med route, obviously. It would have crippled the empire if it had fallen, thats for sure. My best understanding is that it was Hitler's only real chance to win in the west.
This being said, its not automatic victory for the Nazis either. If Suez falls, the key card is America. Trade and support from America, for Britain, dwarfs in importance the whole Empire, as far as the war goes. If Roosevelt enters the war, or the US is already in it when the channel falls, it would probably be safe to say only heavy political pressure on Churchill would mean peace with Germany. But if it falls before its clear America is in to the hilt, then God saves western Europe, because it will hurt every bit as much as the fall of London. IMO not only Churchill's government collapses and the successor asks for peace, but Axis powers are in a great position to negotiate terms based on a perceived victory that would go beyond their actual war prowess. (return of the german colonies, continental domination, control of the french empire and syria, egypt to italy, perhaps)
As for a soviet attack on Germany, i think having the soviets move first would be a very hard blow for the Werhmacht to absorb. Sure their tactics might overcome the large red army numerical superiority, but with Stalin's planes in the air, theyll be much harder to destroy, and the big battles will be fought in Romania and Poland, not in the Ukraine. Its a whole new ballgame. I dont think the Soviets can reach Berlin, but they force the Nazis to more or less hold the line for the entire fighting season and inflict heavy losses on Germany before theyre forced to fall back. If that happens, its almost unthinkable the war can end with total soviet collapse.
OTOH, if the soviets are the ones that attack first, and Germany has peace in the west, somehow i see far more chances for a negociated peace that could eventually be in Germany's favor land-wise, after a couple years fighting. It could potentially leave a Nazi europe behind for awhile. I'm unsure the premise of the fall of Suez is all that likely, however, and obviously, the eastern war as I said, could be a whole new ballgame.
If it had fallen, he might even have resigned. But perhaps not, given the war and the character. Anyhow, the Cape route accounted for less than 10% of the traffic to Asia and was VASTLY longer than the Med route, obviously. It would have crippled the empire if it had fallen, thats for sure. My best understanding is that it was Hitler's only real chance to win in the west.
This being said, its not automatic victory for the Nazis either. If Suez falls, the key card is America. Trade and support from America, for Britain, dwarfs in importance the whole Empire, as far as the war goes. If Roosevelt enters the war, or the US is already in it when the channel falls, it would probably be safe to say only heavy political pressure on Churchill would mean peace with Germany. But if it falls before its clear America is in to the hilt, then God saves western Europe, because it will hurt every bit as much as the fall of London. IMO not only Churchill's government collapses and the successor asks for peace, but Axis powers are in a great position to negotiate terms based on a perceived victory that would go beyond their actual war prowess. (return of the german colonies, continental domination, control of the french empire and syria, egypt to italy, perhaps)
As for a soviet attack on Germany, i think having the soviets move first would be a very hard blow for the Werhmacht to absorb. Sure their tactics might overcome the large red army numerical superiority, but with Stalin's planes in the air, theyll be much harder to destroy, and the big battles will be fought in Romania and Poland, not in the Ukraine. Its a whole new ballgame. I dont think the Soviets can reach Berlin, but they force the Nazis to more or less hold the line for the entire fighting season and inflict heavy losses on Germany before theyre forced to fall back. If that happens, its almost unthinkable the war can end with total soviet collapse.
OTOH, if the soviets are the ones that attack first, and Germany has peace in the west, somehow i see far more chances for a negociated peace that could eventually be in Germany's favor land-wise, after a couple years fighting. It could potentially leave a Nazi europe behind for awhile. I'm unsure the premise of the fall of Suez is all that likely, however, and obviously, the eastern war as I said, could be a whole new ballgame.
In their heart of hearts both dictators knew there were be a war between them at some point. They both regarded the democrocies as weak, indeed they were almost two sides of the same coin.
Hitler needed 'living space' for his 'arayn race' and what better place than in the east, if the Slavs were there first 'tough'.
The Non-Aggression Pact with Russia gave Hitler breathing space to deal with the West, and also gave Stalin a false sense of security.
His war with Finland had shown up too many problems and failings with the Red Army. And conversly Stalin was shocked by how quickly the Germans dealt with France.
Stalin's purges, though ensuring that no one could or would challenge him, created a class of military 'yes' men.
While it is quite likely that Stalin would have liked to invade German controlled territory in 1942, probably while the German Army was engaged elsewhere. The Russian dispositions in June 1941 are more of an Army about to attack - maybe four to six later than the Germans. Death camps where the inmates were put into special battalions, and jailed officers suddenly released back into serviced, all happened suddenly around thos time.
A late campaign by Russia, would have meant that the German counter-attack would have been held up in bad weather much earlier. Would Russia later get lend-lease shipments - debatable as its war would be one of territorial ambitions not liberation!
Hitler needed 'living space' for his 'arayn race' and what better place than in the east, if the Slavs were there first 'tough'.
The Non-Aggression Pact with Russia gave Hitler breathing space to deal with the West, and also gave Stalin a false sense of security.
His war with Finland had shown up too many problems and failings with the Red Army. And conversly Stalin was shocked by how quickly the Germans dealt with France.
Stalin's purges, though ensuring that no one could or would challenge him, created a class of military 'yes' men.
While it is quite likely that Stalin would have liked to invade German controlled territory in 1942, probably while the German Army was engaged elsewhere. The Russian dispositions in June 1941 are more of an Army about to attack - maybe four to six later than the Germans. Death camps where the inmates were put into special battalions, and jailed officers suddenly released back into serviced, all happened suddenly around thos time.
A late campaign by Russia, would have meant that the German counter-attack would have been held up in bad weather much earlier. Would Russia later get lend-lease shipments - debatable as its war would be one of territorial ambitions not liberation!
Max Sinister
Banned
True. If Stalin attacked first, and Hitler put on the propaganda machine, parts of the British government could decide to make peace with Germany, to prevent a Communist takeover of continental Europe.
I don't think the British would make peace with the Nazis, but the number of British supporting such a peace would increase substantially. And British warfare could change, too. How many British would support bombing German cities to make sure the Communists reach the Rhine?
The major relief for Germany would come from collaborators in occupied Europe. The Nazis had thousands of volunteers ready to fight the red menace. ITTL, they'd have even more. And not only that: Vichy France might be willing to join against the Soviets, and Italy might be more willing to help in the East. Turkey might cancel its neutrality. The Scandinavian countries were pretty concerned with Soviet attack on Finnland. ITTL, they'd see the Soviets coming again. Sweden would probably still be neutral, but by far more favourable to the Germans, as would be the case with Danes and Norwegians.
Another point: when Poland becomes a battlefield between the Nazis and the Communists, would there be an Endlösung there?
Suez
Don't forget that if the Suez had fallen then there would be potential for a linkup between the Iraqis revolting against the UK and the Afrika Corps. If the UK had lost the oil then it would have been very dicey that Churchill would have been able to stay in power.
Don't forget that if the Suez had fallen then there would be potential for a linkup between the Iraqis revolting against the UK and the Afrika Corps. If the UK had lost the oil then it would have been very dicey that Churchill would have been able to stay in power.
Stalker
Banned
Quite a stereotypic argument.
What I am surprised with is basing on both Suvorov-Rezun anf Meltyukhov who are in opprosition to each other. I'd also suggest to read Isayev with his "Antisuvorov"...
Where I do support Viktor Suvorov (penname of former GRU-officer who fled to UK, Vladimir Rezun) is his assumptions of Winter War against Finland. I guess that in that conditions, no army on earth could have done better against Finns than Red Army. My opinion is based on simple facts that one speaking of that war may understand thet Red Army soldiers attacked Mannerheim Line in the frost of about 20 degrees below zero centigrade, in blizzards, with snow cover of about 2 meters (almost 7 feet), with natural obstacles ike bif stones and rocks, frozen lakes and ditches which made it almost unpassable for tanks, even light ones, and Mannerheim Line was a very good one full of mine fields and barbed wire, excellently arranged fire and artillery pits, with snipers and fact skier troops all over. What Red Army had finaly accompished was a miracle. They managed to break through the Line, take Viepuri - Vyborg and then, when Finland ied before red Army almost defenceless, Stalin stopped. Ony one who had never been there, in that condition, can say that Soviets were weak because they were unable to beat the shit out of Finns within a week. Rezun, BTW, insists that when he fed those real weather and natural conditions plus the strength of the Line to a wargame computer in the Military Academy in Britain where he teaches, the computer stubbornly advised that tactical nukes be used, and without that the assault was competely impossible.
Concerning who would have been treated as the agressor if Stalin had striked first, you underestimate Stalin's propagand, praising to skies that of Paul Josef Goeebbels. The next day, all the liberal papers, even in the USA, would kry out of "Soviet Liberating Attack on Nazi Germany"
What concerns incompetence in RKKA (Red Army of Workers and Peasants), yes, it was in a way but it was not to degree to prevent fufiling orders and the main obstacle here is not that incompetence (remember Zhukov's pocketing the 6-th Japanese Army at Khalkin-Gol, and many of Soviet officers getting their experience in Spain and in the Winter Campaign against Finland) but rather inflexible doctrine adopted by the Red Army.
In my opinion, both armies - RKKA and Wehrmacht might do well in assaut but much worse in devence. Flexible doctrine of Wehrmach would help it to do better, of course, but not when the situation is quite otherwise, when Russian tanks override your positions here and there, your own tanks are caught in the parks, or have no ammo, or are not fueled, or are forced to enter the fight one by one against the overwelming force, or are simpy bombed on the march to the position, your airdromes are bombed to ashes and you have no air support - well all the "niceties" you get when the enemy has the initiative. So, what would matter here is who strikes first!
Redbeard
Banned
Suvorov's claims of a Soviet attack being planned for 1941 are met with a lot of scepticism, and David Glantz excellently has shown how far the Red Army by 1941 was prepared for such operation and that the Soviet leadership must have known all about it.
It is without doubt however that Zhukov in spring of 1941 actually suggested a preemptive attack on Germany, but it was turned down by Stalin.
More important is however, that the Red Army's 1941 trouble mainly stemmed from being in the middle of a huge transition and expansion. The mechansied corps had first been abandoned and then instituted again after the German successes in France and most units were understrength as cadres had been spread to meet the plan for a 500 Division (!) army by mid 1942.
For comparison the Germans in Barbarossa launched 150 German Divisions.
The 1942 Red Army would have had modern tanks (T34, KV1), planes and artillery, and a high degree of mechanisation, in short a formidable force. Apparently the Germans had no idea about this (i.e. no excuse about Barbarossa being preemptive), but seriously believed that they should just kick in the door and the rest of the house would come down.
Nobody (AFAIK) know what plans Stalin had for 1942, if the Germans hadn't attacked themselves, but when a chap like Stalin has put big effort into building a 500 Division Army with a noted offensive potential, you of course will have to take into acount that he will use it.
I would not exclude that a 1942 Soviet attack would be able to reach the Rhine or the Channel, but I doubt it. Even if Germany has put main focus on a Mediterranean strategy it will not mean deploying major German land forces outside Europe. The bulk of the German army will still be available for defending the eastern borders.
The attacking Red Army risk being cut off by German counterattacks.
Concerning the Mediterranean strategy the British indeed will do anything to keep the Germans away from the Suez, and have a good chance, as the Germans will have serious difficulties in supplying a force large enough to do the job in that part of the world.
Closing the Suez for traffic (just need one side) might have Churchill fall, there is a limit how many defeats a leader can take, but I doubt it will have significant strategic importance. The Med. was closed to traffic from Italy's entry into the war and the allied forces in Egypt, Libya, India and the Far East were supplied around the Cape. It was hoped the the allied Med. strategy would open the Med. again, but by the time the Med. was cleared it had been decided (by USA) to put the effort vs. Japan in the Pacific instead of the Far East and GB was too weak and too committed in Europe to undertake her own offensive in the Far East.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
It is without doubt however that Zhukov in spring of 1941 actually suggested a preemptive attack on Germany, but it was turned down by Stalin.
More important is however, that the Red Army's 1941 trouble mainly stemmed from being in the middle of a huge transition and expansion. The mechansied corps had first been abandoned and then instituted again after the German successes in France and most units were understrength as cadres had been spread to meet the plan for a 500 Division (!) army by mid 1942.
For comparison the Germans in Barbarossa launched 150 German Divisions.
The 1942 Red Army would have had modern tanks (T34, KV1), planes and artillery, and a high degree of mechanisation, in short a formidable force. Apparently the Germans had no idea about this (i.e. no excuse about Barbarossa being preemptive), but seriously believed that they should just kick in the door and the rest of the house would come down.
Nobody (AFAIK) know what plans Stalin had for 1942, if the Germans hadn't attacked themselves, but when a chap like Stalin has put big effort into building a 500 Division Army with a noted offensive potential, you of course will have to take into acount that he will use it.
I would not exclude that a 1942 Soviet attack would be able to reach the Rhine or the Channel, but I doubt it. Even if Germany has put main focus on a Mediterranean strategy it will not mean deploying major German land forces outside Europe. The bulk of the German army will still be available for defending the eastern borders.
The attacking Red Army risk being cut off by German counterattacks.
Concerning the Mediterranean strategy the British indeed will do anything to keep the Germans away from the Suez, and have a good chance, as the Germans will have serious difficulties in supplying a force large enough to do the job in that part of the world.
Closing the Suez for traffic (just need one side) might have Churchill fall, there is a limit how many defeats a leader can take, but I doubt it will have significant strategic importance. The Med. was closed to traffic from Italy's entry into the war and the allied forces in Egypt, Libya, India and the Far East were supplied around the Cape. It was hoped the the allied Med. strategy would open the Med. again, but by the time the Med. was cleared it had been decided (by USA) to put the effort vs. Japan in the Pacific instead of the Far East and GB was too weak and too committed in Europe to undertake her own offensive in the Far East.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Redbeard
Banned
Quite a stereotypic argument.
What I am surprised with is basing on both Suvorov-Rezun anf Meltyukhov who are in opprosition to each other. I'd also suggest to read Isayev with his "Antisuvorov"...
Where I do support Viktor Suvorov (penname of former GRU-officer who fled to UK, Vladimir Rezun) is his assumptions of Winter War against Finland. I guess that in that conditions, no army on earth could have done better against Finns than Red Army. My opinion is based on simple facts that one speaking of that war may understand thet Red Army soldiers attacked Mannerheim Line in the frost of about 20 degrees below zero centigrade, in blizzards, with snow cover of about 2 meters (almost 7 feet), with natural obstacles ike bif stones and rocks, frozen lakes and ditches which made it almost unpassable for tanks, even light ones, and Mannerheim Line was a very good one full of mine fields and barbed wire, excellently arranged fire and artillery pits, with snipers and fact skier troops all over. What Red Army had finaly accompished was a miracle. They managed to break through the Line, take Viepuri - Vyborg and then, when Finland ied before red Army almost defenceless, Stalin stopped. Ony one who had never been there, in that condition, can say that Soviets were weak because they were unable to beat the shit out of Finns within a week. Rezun, BTW, insists that when he fed those real weather and natural conditions plus the strength of the Line to a wargame computer in the Military Academy in Britain where he teaches, the computer stubbornly advised that tactical nukes be used, and without that the assault was competely impossible.
Concerning who would have been treated as the agressor if Stalin had striked first, you underestimate Stalin's propagand, praising to skies that of Paul Josef Goeebbels. The next day, all the liberal papers, even in the USA, would kry out of "Soviet Liberating Attack on Nazi Germany"
What concerns incompetence in RKKA (Red Army of Workers and Peasants), yes, it was in a way but it was not to degree to prevent fufiling orders and the main obstacle here is not that incompetence (remember Zhukov's pocketing the 6-th Japanese Army at Khalkin-Gol, and many of Soviet officers getting their experience in Spain and in the Winter Campaign against Finland) but rather inflexible doctrine adopted by the Red Army.
In my opinion, both armies - RKKA and Wehrmacht might do well in assaut but much worse in devence. Flexible doctrine of Wehrmach would help it to do better, of course, but not when the situation is quite otherwise, when Russian tanks override your positions here and there, your own tanks are caught in the parks, or have no ammo, or are not fueled, or are forced to enter the fight one by one against the overwelming force, or are simpy bombed on the march to the position, your airdromes are bombed to ashes and you have no air support - well all the "niceties" you get when the enemy has the initiative. So, what would matter here is who strikes first!
The initial attacks vs. the Finns were conducted in an extremely incompetent and uncoordinated way, not just vs. the Mannerheim Line but also in the north. The weather and terrain was a known factor and was just as hard for the Finns. In that context I understand why the Germans valued the Red Army very low, but they just overlooked that the final attacks were succesful not just beacuse of overwhelming numbers but also because the red Army actually had learned to coordinate - a very great progress compared to a few months before.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard